Posted:
Okay, so the issue of law vs. personal boundaries particularly when the law and law-upholders dont take responsibility for the fallout.
I believe that female foeticide is wrong -- for a variety of social issues.I also believe that abortion of a child found to be mentally retarded or afflicted with down's syndrome in the womb (during the course of a sonogram) is also wrong -- because there are social and ethical issues at play.The former is a big issue in India -- and the latter is a big issue in the U.S.While it is illegal to engage in female foeticide in India -- in the U.S. there is no such law (YET) though there are several propositions/proposals on the table. So at this point, killing foetuses with disabilities is just unethical.While pro-life activists condemn killing foetuses with disabilities ... I stand on the other side with the parents right to choose.If the law stops a child with a disability from being aborted and that child is born, lawmakers and law-upholders will thump themselves on the back for having saved a life, dust their hands off and walk away congratulating themselves.So, the child is born with severe disorders, and now the responsibility of this unwanted child is on the parents. The parents may or may not have the financial or the emotional werewithal to bring a child with a disability in this world, and then raise it for the next fifty years. I personally would not want to be tied down to a child with a disability (My choice -- others may have different choices).It is very easy for someone to say "Tinoo should give birth to the child with down's syndrome because the child has a right to life"... when they will not be the ones shouldering the consequences.The same with female foeticide -- I dont applaud it, but I really wonder about the activists who stop it, force the girl to be born and then walk away. The girl child is born into an environment where she is unwelcome. She will always be treated with resentment and second-rate treatment. It is not just that the lawmakers gave her a 'life'... my concern will be on the quality of life that this unwanted girl child will have.I dont doubt the nobility of the first action... but when people who are not engaged with or interested in the consequences interfere and then dump the consequences back on the concerned parties, I really have issues.I dont think that there are any clear cut solutions but it is certainly an interesting discussion on the law and its interference in personal matters.
No offense, but what does all this have to do with the serial or the episodes in question. You have raised some interesting points on abortion and female foeticide, and I would seriously love to discuss them at length, but seriously this is not the right forum for it.
Overall, I think you are confused between education, awareness campaigns and responsibility. When one stops a criminal activity from taking place esp. a social crime, it is not an action arrested by force majeure. It is most often accompanied by creating awareness and making the guilty party understand the reasons why their actions are wrong and guiding them towards a better thought process.
That is what social activists do. Stop a social crime from taking place and create awareness. They do not take lifelong responsibility of every victim they rescue. They are social activists not Christian Missionaries (apologies for using a religious example, but that is the most apt one that comes to mind to illustrate my point).
Missionaries act by creating an alternative world which is dissociated from contemporary society and build refuges. Social activists change the way people think, bringing about a change in the society as a whole. They unlike the former group, do not "rescue" the victims. They educate the guilty so that there are no more victims. One acts on individual cases, the other on society as a whole.
